To Obama: Good Resentment v. Bad Resentment

Rotten to the core! That’s how I feel about our Federal government right now. Let’s be honest–if you’re intellectually honest–this has been going on for many, many years now. Well before my insignificant vapor of a life ever appeared on planet Earth!

Prior to the American Civil War the United States had no political parties per se. But due to our own conditioning via public and private learning institutions (both higher and lower), we have come to accept a two-party political system as necessary and proper. I’m just as guilty as anybody who agrees that a two-party political system is instrumental to a well-functioning representative government in America. I’m not so sure anymore.

We already have legislative, judicial and executive branches in our government. We also have some rather ingenious cheques & balances in place to tame the powers of each separate branch (cf. “Separation of Powers”). Do we really need to subdivide it even more by introducing political parties in the mix? Or is it like Washington said? In the the long run they (political parties) are always harmful?

The Founders

Call it “enlightenment” or “insanity” (or what you will), but I call it “research.” What did I research? Answer: our Founders and the founding documents–specifically the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, and numerous sources regarding the transformation of American politics via the Progressive Movement; which led me back to my earlier studies of the Soviet and Marxism proper.

“Political parties are always baneful, and in the long run, they are harmful.”

–George Washington

Although not technically a “Founder” of our nation, Abraham Lincoln reminds us that under our Constitution we have the right to shirk off an unjust government.

“We, the People, are the Rightful Masters of both Congress and the Courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

–Abraham Lincoln

The Progressive Movement

To discover the roots of Marxism (via the Progressive Movement) so deeply engrained within the Federal government for so many years was a great shock to me. I have to give credit to folks like Glenn Beck and Trevor Loudon who challenged me to go find out for myself; it’s all out there, so to speak! What’s interesting about Progressiveism is it was started by Teddy Roosevelt–a republican! Wonder why Obama is trying to link himself to Teddy now? Ask no more. This is what makes Progressiveism so diabolical, in my opinion.

The basic tenet of the Progressive Movement is to move the U.S.A. progressively away from the Constitution toward direct democracy (i.e. Socialism/Communism, “popular rule”).

The alleged ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 was one of the more dastardly moves pushed for by the Progressive Movement that succeeded. The Seventeenth effectively wrenched the Senate from the States. Now we vote for Senators via “popular elections.”

The Influence of Marx in America

“Popular” is very popular word among Marxists; hence, the terms “popular vote,” “popular uprising” and “populist movement” used regularly by socialists and communists. As David Horowitz has said repeatedly, “Communists always identify themselves as ‘Progressives.'”

“Oh yeah, right, Sard, there’s a commie under every bush,” I can hear the denier say.

Well, Marxism is not rocket science, in my opinion; it’s really thugocracy for all intents and purposes. The Marxist philosophy has been around for a very long time indeed. The heart of Marxian philosophy is simple: the collective always trumps the rights of the individual; for the collective is the individual, according to Marxist belief.

In the Marxist system, the producer (the true “worker”) is punished, because all production must be controlled by the state, in order to make it “fair.” You know, “level the playing field.” You, as an individual, in such a system, are only given what you “need” based upon the oligarchy in control of the means of production–the state. The notion of individuality has to be wiped out in such a system.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

–Vladmir Lenin

Additionally, the greatest threat to a Marxist economic system is a vibrant and thriving middle-class. The middle-class (“bourgeoisie”) must be wiped out in order to control the state’s means of production and the accumulation of wealth. This is why the notion of independence is anathema to Soviet-style governmental systems. It’s the collective, not the independent individual, that makes up the Soviet (cf. “Council).

Now all we hear from Obama is talk of the Utopian Socialist Collective and how “the rich must pay their fair share.” This is classic bourgeoisie (“the haves”) v. the proletariat (the “have nots”)–straight from the Communist Manifesto! It’s class warfare–plain and simple. Go to just about any recent #OWS protest and you will see Communism and Marxism in full-frontal glory. And yet dear leader wholeheartedly empathizes with the lawless and ill-behaved “Occupy” crowd. Well, he should! He and his minions organized it!

When I first the read the Communist Manifesto, I was struck by one simple and revealing observation: Marx & Engels seemed utterly astonished and bewildered at the success of the American economic system; which they labeled “capitalism.” My first reaction to this deduction was to ask myself why not just adopt our economic system, Marx & Engels? The reason Marx & Engels seemed so concerned about the amazing success of American economic might was the fact that other nations were adopting American free market principles and were beginning to prosper themselves! Marx only saw “unjust competition,” not prosperity. One of the hallmarks of Marxist philosophy is its abject disdain for economic competition. The dyed-in-the-wool Marxist sees competition as a great threat to humankind.

Good Resentment v. Bad Resentment

This reminds me of an old story I once heard from a wise man. It has do with something called “bad resentment versus good resentment.” Now many have a knee-jerk reaction to the notion of a “good resentment,” but bear with me.

Let’s say my house is in need of a new coat of paint. And let’s just say this state of disrepair has existed for a couple of years now. So much so, the “wife” is getting irritated. But, instead of doing anything about it, Saturday rolls around and I decide to sit on the porch and drink a beer and watch the world go by (as “wife” gets madder). Then I see my neighbor across the street get out the ladders and paint cans and go straight to work on a applying a fresh coat of paint to his house by the sweat of his brow.

Now, this where it gets interesting: I can sit there on the porch drinking my beer and cop a big ole resentment against my neighbor. I mean, he is making me look bad and all in front of the “wife.” I could just go over there and burn his house down! I got a “bad resentment” now!

Or I could go buy some paint and get the ladders out myself and paint my own dang house! The “wife” would be happy! That’s what’s called a “good resentment.”

It appears that Marx & Engels copped a real “bad resentment”; it appears Marx & Engels made it their life’s work to “burn our house down.” At which point, I would like to remind the Marx & Engels crowd that it’s a “two-way” street. And it’s a street you really don’t won’t to go down!

Marxism is slavery and death. I will NEVER, EVER accept living under any type of Soviet system.

Remember, only 3% of the colonists in the Revolutionary War picked up arms and actually fought the British and King George, yet it was enough.

Am I advocating armed rebellion? Of course not! I’m simply reminding those who wish harm against us that there will always be those who resist … and WIN!